Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Gifted Education

Professional Learning Modules on Universal Screening, Grouping, Acceleration, and Equity in Gifted Programs

Susan K. Johnsen, Monica Simonds, Marcy Voss

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000493597
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Éducation
• Sous-sujet: Éducation générale

According to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), evidence-based practices are supported by rigorous research designs and demonstrate that they improve student outcomes, but the actual implementation of these practices in schools is limited. This essential guidebook assists coordinators of gifted education in implementing three evidence-based practices: universal screening, grouping, and acceleration. Each module includes an overview of research, administrative and assessment considerations, forms for implementing the practice, scripted presentation slides for educators and parents, and resources. Modules may be used by educators within a series of workshops for an entire school district, on an individual campus or for important stakeholders.

MODULE 1
Universal Screening

DOI: 10.4324/9781003235729-2

1. Background Information for the Instructor
2. Professional Learning Activities
3. Resources
4. References

MODULE 1
Background Information for the Instructor

DOI: 10.4324/9781003235729-3

1. Goals
2. Big Ideas
3. Background Research
   1. Definition
   2. Rationale and Purpose for Universal Screening
   3. Effects of Universal Screening
   4. Legal Concerns
   5. Challenges
4. Administrative Considerations
   1. What District or State Policies Should Be Considered?
   2. What Are the District Requirements to Meet Federal and State Laws?
   3. What Is the Process to Select Assessments and Plan for Universal Screening?
   4. What Specific Challenges Related to Scheduling and Students' Needs Must Be Addressed Before Universal Screening Assessments Are Implemented?
   5. How Is the Testing Schedule Communicated?
   6. How Are Assessments Scored and Results Interpreted?
   7. How Might Administrators Create a Culture of Change to Facilitate the Implementation of Universal Screening?
5. Assessment Considerations
   1. Does the Test Match Programming and Services Within a Domain?
   2. Does the Test Match Student Characteristics?
   3. Is the Test Technically Adequate?
   4. How Do Educators Develop and Use Local Norms?
6. Glossary

ONLINE RESOURCES

Quick reference guides for educators and parents on universal screening, as well as editable and reproducible implementation forms for this module, may be accessed at this book's product page: https://www.routledge.com/9781646321971.

Goals

At the conclusion of this module, educators will:

1. Define and describe the purpose of universal screening and its research base.
2. Describe the effects of universal screening.
3. Identify challenges related to legal concerns, parents/guardians, teachers, and time.
4. Write school policies and protocols related to implementing universal screening.
5. Evaluate the effectiveness of universal screening policies and protocols.

Big Ideas

1. Universal screening is one component for increasing the representation of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) students in gifted and talented programs.
2. Universal screening yields data that can be utilized for multiple purposes.
3. Connecting universal screening to district goals and desired student outcomes builds support and opportunities for professional learning.

Background Research

Definition

Universal screening is the "systematic assessment of all children within a given class, grade, school building, or school district on academic and/or social-emotional indicators that the school personnel and community have agreed are important" (Ikeda et al., 2008, p. 103).

Ikeda et al. (2008) defined universal screening as the "systematic assessment of all children within a given class, grade, school building, or school district on academic and/or social-emotional indicators that the school personnel and community have agreed are important" (p. 103). Universal screening may be part of a larger assessment process that screens all students for a variety of specialized services (e.g., special education, gifted education, language development), but it is different from a more traditional identification process that relies on referrals from educators and parents/guardians before tests are administered. With referral, some students are recommended for further testing, whereas in universal screening, all students are administered at least one formal assessment as the first step in the screening process (Lakin, 2016). If universal screening is part of a formal identification process, the initial screening is then followed by additional assessments related to the specific gifted education program and services.

Rationale and Purpose for Universal Screening

• □ Universal screening improves the number of referrals for gifted services.
• □ It reduces sources of bias in referrals.
• □ It increases identification opportunities for underrepresented groups (e.g., students who are English language learners, economically disadvantaged, and/or culturally diverse).

The biggest challenge for school districts in identifying students for gifted services is ensuring that CLED students are given equity of access to opportunities. With the exception of students who are Asian or Asian American, students from CLED backgrounds are less likely to be identified for gifted programs (de Wet & Gubbins, 2011). Gifted programs have been criticized because they tend to serve students who are White, middle class, and academic achievers (Briggs et al., 2008). In fact, a Hispanic student is less than half as likely to be placed in a program for high-achieving and gifted students (National Research Council, 2002).

McBee et al, (2016) reported that referrals for testing resulted in a large proportion of gifted students being missed, with as many as 60% being false negatives (i.e., true gifted students who are not identified). Gentry et al. (2019) estimated the specific number of missed students to be 3.6 million, which is more than the number of students identified—3.2 million. They determined that students were more likely to be missed for identification if they were from Black, Latinx, and Native racial groups; Title I schools; and/or town and rural schools.

There is a great variability among teachers in referring students for gifted programs (McBee, 2006; Siegle et al., 2010). Teachers do not tend to recognize talents equally among all students and often overlook those who do not exhibit characteristics they view as typical of gifted students (e.g., advanced vocabulary, high achievement; Carman, 2011; de Wet & Gubbins, 2011; Neumeister et al., 2007; Plata et al., 1999; Siegle & Powell, 2004). To increase the number of students referred, researchers suggest more professional learning for teachers in gifted education and encourage teachers to refer the top 25% of their class (Foreman & Gubbins, 2015; Harradine et al., 2014; McBee et al., 2016; Miller, 2009; Neumeister et al., 2007). Similarly, parents/guardians may not recognize the abilities of their children, particularly those from poor and immigrant backgrounds (Card & Guiliano, 2015, 2016).

One of the effects of not recognizing talents is the increasing achievement gaps at higher levels of academic performance (i.e., gaps in performance at the 90th percentile using the National Assessment of Educational Progress). Students who are economically disadvantaged, English language learners (ELLs), or from culturally diverse backgrounds represent a smaller proportion of students scoring at the highest levels of achievement (Plucker et al., 2010). Moreover, the performance of high achievers who are economically disadvantaged tends to regress as they progress through school, widening the achievement gap between students from higher income and lower income backgrounds (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012; Plucker et al., 2013; Wyner et al., 2007). This gap negatively impacts high school completion rates, admission to selective college rates, and persistence in college for gifted students from lower income families (Barton & Coley, 2009; Kaul et al., 2016).

Researchers have suggested a variety of strategies for improving access, such as broadening the definition of giftedness, using multiple assessment criteria, and including alternative assessments such as portfolios, performance and dynamic assessments, and more recently, universal assessment (Briggs et al., 2008; Gentry et al., 2019; Johnsen, 2018; Lakin, 2016; Plucker & Peters, 2016). Based on this research, the 2019 National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards include universal screening as an evidence-based practice and more equitable approach to improve the identification of gifted students from diverse backgrounds (see NAGC, 2019a, Evidence-Based Practice 2.3.1).

Effects of Universal Screening

• □ Universal screening increases participation rates among students from traditionally underrepresented groups,
• □ More schools identify students who are gifted
• □ Achievement gains are similar for students identified under the new universal screening program compared to the previous referral program.

Although numerous studies support acceleration and grouping, one quasiexperimental study is cited in the literature related to universal screening. Using longitudinal data from a large, diverse district in Florida that moved from a system based on teacher and parent/guardian referral to a system based on universal screening, Card and Giuliano (2015) examined the effects on the number of identified gifted and talented students in the district and compared the effects with a matched comparison group of schools in Florida. Their data included a 2-year time period before universal screening was fully implemented, a 2-year time period when it was fully implemented, and a 2-year time period when an underfunded version of the program formally ended. Prior to implementation of universal screening, students had to be nominated by a parent/guardian or teacher before they were able to access an individually administered intelligence test. Note that, in Florida, students had to achieve a score of 130 (98th percentile) to be identified as gifted; however, if the students were considered disadvantaged due to being classified as English language learners or being eligible for free or reduced lunch, they needed to achieve a score of 116 (85th percentile). If students met the criterion on the intelligence test, then a final determination was made based on "parent and teacher inputs and scores on a checklist verifying that the student showed evidence of 'gifted indicators,' including motivation, creativity, and adaptability" (Card & Giuliano, 2015, p. 4). When universal screening was implemented, the district tested all second-grade students using a nonverbal measure of cognitive ability. All students who met the cut-scores on the screening test (i.e., 130 or 116) were eligible for the individually administered intelligence test. They needed to meet the cut-scores on the intelligence test to be considered for the gifted and talented program.

Table 1.1 summarizes several effects. Prior to implementing universal screening, students in the gifted and talented program in the study were overrepresented by White students from high-socioeconomic backgrounds (Card & Giuliano, 2015). Only 28% of gifted students in the third grade were African

TABLE 1.1
Summary of Effects

Before Universal Screening	After Universal Screening
Students in the gifted and talented program were overrepresented by White students from high-socioeconomic backgrounds. Only 28% of gifted students in the third grade were African American or Hispanic although these students made up 60% of the population.	Universal screening led to a 180% increase in participation rates among students from traditionally underrepresented groups—those who were African American, Hispanic, ELLs, or from lower income backgrounds.
In the target district, 18% of the schools contained 50% of the gifted students.	With universal screening, 57% of the schools contained 50% of the district's gifted.
	Achievement gains indicated that students identified under the new universal screening program benefitted as much as those who had been identified in the referral system.

American or Hispanic, although these students made up 60% of the population. Universal sc...